Error on attempting to start Bitlocker.

I am trying to encrypt an external new 4TB HDD
(Seagate) formatted ExFat. Connected to a USB3
socket.

When trying to turn on Bitlocker I get....

"Can't enumerate any more, because the
associated data is missing."

No luck with Google searches.

Can anyone help?
Peter

Peter Jason wrote:
I am trying to encrypt an external new 4TB HDD
(Seagate) formatted ExFat. Connected to a USB3
socket.

When trying to turn on Bitlocker I get....

"Can't enumerate any more, because the
associated data is missing."

No luck with Google searches.

Can anyone help?
Peter

The error has been around since the year 2014.
Maybe even earlier.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...5-98614c3d9ec4

"... Turns out you can't start encrypting a drive
with Bitlocker if you're logged in through remote desktop."

So don't panic and assume 17763 is the immediate
culprit.

One person in that thread, had two relatively similar
drives, one of which would encrypt, another which
refused while showing that error.

One suggestion here, is to put some fake
data on the partition first, before enabling
Bitlocker. To give the software something to chew on.
Once it's running and happy, delete the fake data.

https://superuser.com/questions/5917...ith-4k-sectors

Paul

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:32:08 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Peter Jason wrote:
I am trying to encrypt an external new 4TB HDD
(Seagate) formatted ExFat. Connected to a USB3
socket.

When trying to turn on Bitlocker I get....

"Can't enumerate any more, because the
associated data is missing."

No luck with Google searches.

Can anyone help?
Peter

The error has been around since the year 2014.
Maybe even earlier.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...5-98614c3d9ec4

"... Turns out you can't start encrypting a drive
with Bitlocker if you're logged in through remote desktop."

So don't panic and assume 17763 is the immediate
culprit.

One person in that thread, had two relatively similar
drives, one of which would encrypt, another which
refused while showing that error.

One suggestion here, is to put some fake
data on the partition first, before enabling
Bitlocker. To give the software something to chew on.
Once it's running and happy, delete the fake data.

https://superuser.com/questions/5917...ith-4k-sectors

Paul

Ive run chkdsk & sfc /scannow too, but no problems
found.

I did try some data (a small txt file), but I will
try something bigger.

The setup is as before when all encrypted
perfectly. The 1803 update is the only difference
I can see.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 12:22:44 +1100, Peter Jason
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:32:08 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Peter Jason wrote:
I am trying to encrypt an external new 4TB HDD
(Seagate) formatted ExFat. Connected to a USB3
socket.

When trying to turn on Bitlocker I get....

"Can't enumerate any more, because the
associated data is missing."

No luck with Google searches.

Can anyone help?
Peter

The error has been around since the year 2014.
Maybe even earlier.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...5-98614c3d9ec4

"... Turns out you can't start encrypting a drive
with Bitlocker if you're logged in through remote desktop."

So don't panic and assume 17763 is the immediate
culprit.

One person in that thread, had two relatively similar
drives, one of which would encrypt, another which
refused while showing that error.

One suggestion here, is to put some fake
data on the partition first, before enabling
Bitlocker. To give the software something to chew on.
Once it's running and happy, delete the fake data.

https://superuser.com/questions/5917...ith-4k-sectors

Paul

Ive run chkdsk & sfc /scannow too, but no problems
found.

I did try some data (a small txt file), but I will
try something bigger.

No, that didn't work. Still gives the same
message.

The setup is as before when all encrypted
perfectly. The 1803 update is the only difference
I can see.

😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
On 12/10/2018 23:29, Peter Jason wrote:
I am trying to encrypt an external new 4TB HDD
(Seagate) formatted ExFat. Connected to a USB3
socket.

When trying to turn on Bitlocker I get....

"Can't enumerate any more, because the
associated data is missing."

No luck with Google searches.

Can anyone help?
Peter

For ExFat try to partition the drive to 2TB each. It should work.

Alternatively use NTFS. To convert a drive to NTFS, you can try this in
cmd prompt:

*convert /your-drive/: /fs:ntfs*

Replace your-drive with D, E, F, G, etc etc whatever is your drive letter.

Not sure with exfat whether it can be converted to NTFS with this
command but try it anyway.

You might be in luck.

I noticed that Win10 now has "super-cluster" capability.

One formatting option for Win10, stops at 64K as normal.

But another formatting option allows clusters up to 1MB.

The convert command may then have the option of keeping
the clusters when it does the conversion. (ExFAT uses
big clusters too.)

However, if you take the super-sized NTFS partition over to
Win7, it cannot read a partition prepared that way (nothing
to do with BitLocker, just the cluster size is too
big).

*******

And you might be right that ExFAT is the issue. An older
article here only happens to mentuion NTFS and FAT32
as candidates.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...or=-2147217396

"Encrypting USB flash drives protects the data stored
on the volume. Any USB flash drive formatted with FAT,
FAT32, or NTFS can be encrypted with BitLocker."

ExFAT would have existed at that point in time, so maybe
that's the problem.

This one from 2012 is more permissive.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/pre...4%28v=ws.10%29

"The hard disk must contain at least two partitions:
the operating system partition and the active system partition.
The active system partition must remain unencrypted so
that the computer can be started...

The operating system and active system partitions must
be formatted with the NTFS file system. Other partitions
can be formatted with NTFS, FAT, FAT32, or exFAT.

You can use BitLocker to encrypt fixed data drives (such
as internal hard drives) and removable data drives (such
as external hard drives and USB flash drives). To encrypt
a data drive, it must be formatted by using the FAT, FAT16,
FAT32, or NTFS file system"

Reading that like a lawyer, it means the disk with the
C: partition on it, could have an ExFAT partition next
to it which can be encrypted. However, if you use another
drive, then ExFAT disappears from the list.

And that doesn't explain how a guy with two identical hard drives,
got different results.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...5-98614c3d9ec4

"It's a 4TB Seagate external drive...and what's crazy
is I have a (theoretically) identical 4TB Seagate, purchased
at the same time, which encrypted just fine.

They're both formatted NTFS, and both show an identical
amount of space... I've got both hooked up simultaneously
and one, already encrypted, mounts just fine.
"

Paul

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 22:42:02 -0400, Paul
wrote:

? Good Guy ? wrote:
On 12/10/2018 23:29, Peter Jason wrote:
I am trying to encrypt an external new 4TB HDD
(Seagate) formatted ExFat. Connected to a USB3
socket.

When trying to turn on Bitlocker I get....

"Can't enumerate any more, because the
associated data is missing."

No luck with Google searches.

Can anyone help?
Peter

For ExFat try to partition the drive to 2TB each. It should work.

Alternatively use NTFS. To convert a drive to NTFS, you can try this in
cmd prompt:

*convert /your-drive/: /fs:ntfs*

Replace your-drive with D, E, F, G, etc etc whatever is your drive letter.

Not sure with exfat whether it can be converted to NTFS with this
command but try it anyway.

You might be in luck.

I noticed that Win10 now has "super-cluster" capability.

One formatting option for Win10, stops at 64K as normal.

But another formatting option allows clusters up to 1MB.

The convert command may then have the option of keeping
the clusters when it does the conversion. (ExFAT uses
big clusters too.)

However, if you take the super-sized NTFS partition over to
Win7, it cannot read a partition prepared that way (nothing
to do with BitLocker, just the cluster size is too
big).

*******

And you might be right that ExFAT is the issue. An older
article here only happens to mentuion NTFS and FAT32
as candidates.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...or=-2147217396

"Encrypting USB flash drives protects the data stored
on the volume. Any USB flash drive formatted with FAT,
FAT32, or NTFS can be encrypted with BitLocker."

ExFAT would have existed at that point in time, so maybe
that's the problem.

This one from 2012 is more permissive.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/pre...4%28v=ws.10%29

"The hard disk must contain at least two partitions:
the operating system partition and the active system partition.
The active system partition must remain unencrypted so
that the computer can be started...

The operating system and active system partitions must
be formatted with the NTFS file system. Other partitions
can be formatted with NTFS, FAT, FAT32, or exFAT.

You can use BitLocker to encrypt fixed data drives (such
as internal hard drives) and removable data drives (such
as external hard drives and USB flash drives). To encrypt
a data drive, it must be formatted by using the FAT, FAT16,
FAT32, or NTFS file system"

Reading that like a lawyer, it means the disk with the
C: partition on it, could have an ExFAT partition next
to it which can be encrypted. However, if you use another
drive, then ExFAT disappears from the list.

And that doesn't explain how a guy with two identical hard drives,
got different results.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...5-98614c3d9ec4

"It's a 4TB Seagate external drive...and what's crazy
is I have a (theoretically) identical 4TB Seagate, purchased
at the same time, which encrypted just fine.

They're both formatted NTFS, and both show an identical
amount of space... I've got both hooked up simultaneously
and one, already encrypted, mounts just fine.
"

Paul


Thanks to all.

Quick-reformatting as a NTFS drive makes it work.

I thought 4TB drives required the exFat thing, so
when did this change?

Will I have future trouble using the NFTS for this
4TB drive?

Peter Jason wrote:

Thanks to all.

Quick-reformatting as a NTFS drive makes it work.

I thought 4TB drives required the exFat thing, so
when did this change?

Will I have future trouble using the NFTS for this
4TB drive?

No, it should work fine.

Large drives require GPT if you expect to make
big partitions.

MSDOS partitioning using Sector 0 partition table
is limited to 32 bit values. 2^32 sectors times 512 bytes
per sector gives 2.2TB or so. If you want to make one
giant 4TB partition on the 4TB disk, that takes GPT.
GPT uses a separate partition table, 128MB in size
with a 1MB descriptor per partition. There is an
MBR, it says the disk is GPT, then the GPT partition
table has the details needed.

An example of a place you might have trouble with GPT,
would be an older computer with WinXP on it. It doesn't
know what GPT is.

If you want to bridge the old and the new world, you
might use Acronis Capacity Manager (free, but a pain
in the ass) or it's possible Paragon might have a product.
Basically the concept on a big disk, is to create two
smaller disks out of it. The first part of the disk
is physical, the second part is virtual (a figment of
software imagination). Each half of the disk is MSDOS
partitioned with a 2.2TB limit. A 4TB drive might look
like this. I've not read of anyone using techniques like
this with really large disks (say 12TB), to know whether
it keeps chopping up the disk until it's used all the
space or not.

+-----+------------------+
Disk 3 | MBR | 2.2TB partition | Physical disk, starts at zero
+-----+------------------+

+-----+------------------+
Disk 5 | MBR | 1.8TB partition | Virtual disk, starts half way out on
+-----+------------------+ the big disk drive.

I used Acronis Capacity Manager for a while, but gave up
on it. When I want to access a 4TB drive on this machine
now, I boot up Windows 8 and the drive uses GPT instead.

You can also mount "Disk 5" partition in the example,
in Linux, using a loopback mount, with a really large
computed number for the "offset". The disadvantage of
that trick, is I/O to the disk only runs at 10MB/sec,
instead of the 100-150MB/sec you were expecting. I have
no idea why it performs so poorly.

Paul